Molise v Rex (C of A (CRI) 5 of 14) [2019] LSCA 59 (1 November 2019)

Molise v Rex (C of A (CRI) 5 of 14) [2019] LSCA 59 (1 November 2019)

The trial court failed to give sufficient weight to extenuating circumstances, including the use of alcohol and time spent in custody, and did not adequately address the impact of the prolonged delay in hearing the appeal. The sentences were therefore manifestly excessive and warranted reduction.

Citation
[2019] LSCA 59
Parties
1st Appellant: ‘Makhotso Molise; 2nd Appellant: Khotso Molise; 3rd Appellant: ‘Mantoa Mokoaleli; Respondent: Rex
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
1 November 2019
Case Number
C of A (CRI) 5 of 14
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentences reduced
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Extenuating Circumstances, Delay in Justice, Concurrent Sentences, Death Penalty
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Appellate Procedure Sentencing Extenuating Circumstances Delay in Justice Concurrent Sentences Death Penalty

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

‘Makhotso Molise

1st Appellant

Khotso Molise

2nd Appellant

‘Mantoa Mokoaleli

3rd Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in finding no extenuating circumstances for the first appellant
  2. 2 Whether the trial court justly differentiated between the three appellants in sentencing
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate given the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court failed to give sufficient weight to extenuating circumstances, including the use of alcohol and time spent in custody, and did not adequately address the impact of the prolonged delay in hearing the appeal. The sentences were therefore manifestly excessive and warranted reduction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentences reduced

Orders

  • The appeals of the first, second and third appellants against their sentences are upheld.
  • The sentences imposed by the High Court are set aside and replaced as follows: First appellant: 15 years imprisonment for murder, 10 years for robbery (concurrent); Second appellant: 12 years imprisonment for murder, 8 years for robbery (concurrent); Third appellant: 15 years imprisonment for murder, 10 years for...